Intel Corp. is projected to release its highly-anticipated eight-core Intel Xeon microprocessors for dual-socket servers in March, 2012. The new chips will be based on Sandy Bridge-EP design with all cores activated and will be very competitive on both server as well as ultra high-end workstation markets.

Lets see, how much you want to bet immature whining about when Apple will release the updated Pro will happen right after the official Intel release?

Even more so wait for the rush of tears when the Pro is put into a new chassis that is all my god smaller.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Fix

Okay.. looks like Intel has the processor we've been waiting for...

Intel Corp. is projected to release its highly-anticipated eight-core Intel Xeon microprocessors for dual-socket servers in March, 2012. The new chips will be based on Sandy Bridge-EP design with all cores activated and will be very competitive on both server as well as ultra high-end workstation markets.

Romley platform will be introduced on March 6, on the first day of CeBIT show. We suspect that the launch will include large number of "Sandy Bridge-EP" Xeon microprocessors from E5-2600, and perhaps from E5-1600 families. We reported on specifications of these Xeons last fall. Prices will range from $294 to $1080 for E5-1600 series chips, and from $202 to $2057 for E5-2600 CPUs.

Apple has a pretty good track record of actually releasing machines before the actual release date of the processors...

And there's this from this site:

Romley platform will be introduced on March 6, on the first day of CeBIT show. We suspect that the launch will include large number of "Sandy Bridge-EP" Xeon microprocessors from E5-2600, and perhaps from E5-1600 families. We reported on specifications of these Xeons last fall. Prices will range from $294 to $1080 for E5-1600 series chips, and from $202 to $2057 for E5-2600 CPUs.

I do hope that Apple focuses on performance.

Quote:

And these stats for the Sandy Bridge 8 Core chip:

I'd be very happy with 2x8 cores at 3.3ghz

Under some workloads these processors show fairly impressive performance gains. I just hope Apple designs hardware that can realize those gains and prices it right.

Quote:

I'm also going to guess the cost of the box to be around $6k. Which is about what I'm expecting to spend.

Too much. They need to deliver a machine with two processors at under $3000 for the base hardware.

Quote:

I'm hoping the case stays the same size, with 4 drive bays, but with updated USB and Thunderbolt.

I think it is time for a major overhaul. They need to introduce modern hardware and stress high performance. While drive bays are still needed for example, SSDs sitting on PCI Express ports should be the standard location for the OS and apps. I also suspect that the video card will be built in to support multiple Thunderbolt ports. The writing is pretty much on the wall in some regards, this will be a major overhaul.

Lets see, how much you want to bet immature whining about when Apple will release the updated Pro will happen right after the official Intel release?

Even more so wait for the rush of tears when the Pro is put into a new chassis that is all my god smaller.

I think it's just a build up of expectations, but we'll see minor changes at best. By that I mean they'll put in another quad cpu in the base model at the same price point, and the 3.2 6 core (can't recall the sku number) at around $3k as it matches up with the release cpu price of the previous one used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69

I do hope that Apple focuses on performance.

Under some workloads these processors show fairly impressive performance gains. I just hope Apple designs hardware that can realize those gains and prices it right.

Too much. They need to deliver a machine with two processors at under $3000 for the base hardware.

I think it is time for a major overhaul. They need to introduce modern hardware and stress high performance. While drive bays are still needed for example, SSDs sitting on PCI Express ports should be the standard location for the OS and apps. I also suspect that the video card will be built in to support multiple Thunderbolt ports. The writing is pretty much on the wall in some regards, this will be a major overhaul.

That would be pretty cool, but I think the languishing is just one of those things Apple does at times. I think they'll reuse as much of the design as possible and update the cpus and obviously gpus (hopefully with decent OpenGL performance for once).

Right now, the entry Xeon they use costs $294. The 6-core/12 thread E5-2620 costs $406. That's just $112 more that can easily be absorbed by Apple by ditching the entire optical bay.

The highest Mac Pro CPU costs $1440 per chip so that maxes the new one out at the 8-core 2.4GHz E5-2665.

Personally, what I'd like to see them do is abandon dual CPU models, get rid of the 5.25" bay, remove all internal PCI slots, put in a high-end Radeon 7000M or NVidia Kepler mobile GPU, cut the PSU, cut the chassis size way down, put on 4 x Thunderbolt ports and keep internal drive expansion slots.

The special sauce would be a zero-config multi-computer link via Thunderbolt. The operating system would detect when you connected another Mac via Thunderbolt and be able to us it for computing transparently. So for example, you start a graphics render on Mac Pro 1, hook up another Mac Pro via Thunderbolt and it automatically knows there's another set of CPUs to use.

There would just be one model of Mac Pro:

6-core 12-thread Xeon E5-2620
8GB RAM
NVidia kepler 1GB VRAM
$2499

there would be an option for an 8-core 16-thread Xeon E5-2650 upgrade
$2999

The downside to multi-computer setups is having to pay some software companies for multiple licenses, in which case Apple making a dual 2.4GHz E5-2665 for $6,200 might be more cost-effective but they have to use dual socket motherboards and accommodate the heat from two CPUs.

Right now, the entry Xeon they use costs $294. The 6-core/12 thread E5-2620 costs $406. That's just $112 more that can easily be absorbed by Apple by ditching the entire optical bay.

The highest Mac Pro CPU costs $1440 per chip so that maxes the new one out at the 8-core 2.4GHz E5-2665.

Personally, what I'd like to see them do is abandon dual CPU models, get rid of the 5.25" bay, remove all internal PCI slots, put in a high-end Radeon 7000M or NVidia Kepler mobile GPU, cut the PSU, cut the chassis size way down, put on 4 x Thunderbolt ports and keep internal drive expansion slots.

The special sauce would be a zero-config multi-computer link via Thunderbolt. The operating system would detect when you connected another Mac via Thunderbolt and be able to us it for computing transparently. So for example, you start a graphics render on Mac Pro 1, hook up another Mac Pro via Thunderbolt and it automatically knows there's another set of CPUs to use.

There would just be one model of Mac Pro:

6-core 12-thread Xeon E5-2620
8GB RAM
NVidia kepler 1GB VRAM
$2499

there would be an option for an 8-core 16-thread Xeon E5-2650 upgrade
$2999

The downside to multi-computer setups is having to pay some software companies for multiple licenses, in which case Apple making a dual 2.4GHz E5-2665 for $6,200 might be more cost-effective but they have to use dual socket motherboards and accommodate the heat from two CPUs.

Gimping the graphics actually takes away one of the more useful things about the machine. I don't see why they'd want to go with one of the "M" as in mobile gpus. They cost more for the performance obtained. I don't think this would be necessary in such a machine. I don't see it shrinking much if at all, especially not to a point where cooling for a normal gpu would be too difficult, so it would not really warrant the cost of implementing such a solution for a potentially flat performance increase. Apple did use a dual socket board with one and two socket configurations in the past. Other companies still employ such a strategy on many models. Right now the flow of the line is just weird with many hiccups in performance gains as you go up or down it. I kind of wonder how many people actually buy the 8 core.

Gimping the graphics actually takes away one of the more useful things about the machine. I don't see why they'd want to go with one of the "M" as in mobile gpus. They cost more for the performance obtained.

It's about changing the Mac Pro from a boring workstation that people expect to last 6-7 years into one that they want to upgrade every refresh cycle. This is where consumer products get the volume and value. GPU upgrades just mean that Apple has to get custom PCI cards out and offer driver support.

trying to upgrade the GPUs in their 4 year old Mac Pros instead of buying a new one. That sort of thing might seem fine from a consumer point of view but if it kills the profitability from Apple's (and by extension Intel's) point of view, then it's not in the best interests of the consumer either because the prices have to be jacked up and the updates won't be frequent.

Right now, the top 27" iMac is faster than the 3.2GHz Mac Pro ($2900) and includes a 27" IPS screen ($999) for just $2199 - iMac is $1700 cheaper than an equivalent Mac Pro setup. Mobile GPUs aren't nearly as gimped as they used to be:

That site places the 6970M above the Mac Pro's 5770 but below the 5870. I think it may in fact be slower than the 5770 but it's in the same range that you wouldn't notice the difference. There is the issue of double-precision support but there are DP mobile GPUs and Apple can share the lower-end models between the iMac and Mac Pro. As the stats show, there's not really a noticeable performance loss going with a mobile GPU but you save space and lower heat.

There's no real harm in using desktop GPUs though so if that's the better option for the Mac Pro, so be it. I think it's the one component that urges Mac Pro owners to hold onto their machines longer instead of replacing them and getting the latest CPU upgrades.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmm

I kind of wonder how many people actually buy the 8 core.

The total Mac Pro sales will be in the hundreds of thousands per quarter. I'd expect the number of buyers across the models to be spread out based on usual wealth distribution - the vast majority at the bottom and the minority at the top. Each model, I'd say less than 100k each per quarter.

There are what I believe to be sound reasons to move away from the current design, one being cost, that are enabled via changing technology. Frankly the Pro has to change some simply to support some of Apples other already established initiatives. The big example here is Thunderbolt (TB) that requires integration of the GPU onto the motherboard. Simply supporting TB requires an overhaul of the whole Pro concept.

Then you have some lesser realities that are telling in the industry. One is that optical drives are going away. Another is the growing desire to see secondary storage on Solid State devices. Then you have cube memory, which might be a bit early to expect.

Take SSD's for example, eventually the interface for them will be PCI Express. Now the industry is actually struggling with the best way to offer up PCI Express based storage cards, should they be standard PC expansion cards or one of the many smaller formats being discussed. I believe Intel and others are working right now on a slimmer card format for SSD's in PC's, and such a format would be advantageously engineered into a new Mac Pro.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmm

I think it's just a build up of expectations, but we'll see minor changes at best. By that I mean they'll put in another quad cpu in the base model at the same price point, and the 3.2 6 core (can't recall the sku number) at around $3k as it matches up with the release cpu price of the previous one used.

Apple has a huge problem with the cost of the Mac Pro, being that it is the only machine with viable internal expansion. A $3K machine just isn't viable anymore as an entry level expandable machine. To that end I'm really hoping Aple has seen the light here and seriously considers a wider split between the high end and the low end of the platform. I'd actually would like to see the low end populated with a desktop Ivy Bridge chip at under $1500. The high end machine should take up the Xeon and high reliability end of the spectrum.

To save the Mac Pro the platform needs to generate more volume in sales. That means addressing the lower cost expandable market.

Quote:

That would be pretty cool, but I think the languishing is just one of those things Apple does at times. I think they'll reuse as much of the design as possible and update the cpus and obviously gpus (hopefully with decent OpenGL performance for once).

Well like I said at the beginning this wouldn't be the first time I would be wrong. I just see a whole bunch of technologies coming forward that will allow for a significant overhaul of the Pro. Maybe allow isn't the right word, some tech like TB will require an overhual.

Right now, the entry Xeon they use costs $294. The 6-core/12 thread E5-2620 costs $406. That's just $112 more that can easily be absorbed by Apple by ditching the entire optical bay.

At the low end the Pro needs a very aggressive price drop to put into a reasonable range of other expandable machines. For this to happen they will need to refactor the whole machine.

Quote:

The highest Mac Pro CPU costs $1440 per chip so that maxes the new one out at the 8-core 2.4GHz E5-2665.

Personally, what I'd like to see them do is abandon dual CPU models, get rid of the 5.25" bay, remove all internal PCI slots, put in a high-end Radeon 7000M or NVidia Kepler mobile GPU, cut the PSU, cut the chassis size way down, put on 4 x Thunderbolt ports and keep internal drive expansion slots.

They really dont need to abandon the duallies, what they need to do is to secure the low end with a single chip platform for those more interested in expansion than raw CPU power.

Quote:

The special sauce would be a zero-config multi-computer link via Thunderbolt. The operating system would detect when you connected another Mac via Thunderbolt and be able to us it for computing transparently. So for example, you start a graphics render on Mac Pro 1, hook up another Mac Pro via Thunderbolt and it automatically knows there's another set of CPUs to use.

"I" clusters!!!!!

It isn't a bad idea though I really don't know how well that would work long term. Clusters of any value usually end up with complex interconnects.

Quote:

There would just be one model of Mac Pro:

6-core 12-thread Xeon E5-2620
8GB RAM
NVidia kepler 1GB VRAM
$2499

there would be an option for an 8-core 16-thread Xeon E5-2650 upgrade
$2999

To really drive volume Apple needs a Ivy Bridge based machine at around $1500. This to address the rather large market that is forced onto PC hardware for lack of an expandable low end Mac. Such a machine would still need a modest GPU, but a 4 core 8 thread CPU complex would be just about right for many users.

Quote:

The downside to multi-computer setups is having to pay some software companies for multiple licenses, in which case Apple making a dual 2.4GHz E5-2665 for $6,200 might be more cost-effective but they have to use dual socket motherboards and accommodate the heat from two CPUs.

The majority of users aren't all that concerned about high end software packages. It would be easy for Apple to continue to offer dual Socket machines for those that are high end. The problem is pretty clear, high end users are not enough volume wise to justify the platform. That is one of the reasons why I'd like to see the platform refactored to cover a wider array of needs.

I actually think Apple has shot themselves in the foot here. They are no longer considered credible as a desktop supplier of computing hardware. This will not be easy to recover from no matter what they do with the Mac Pro. However as long as they only have a grossly over priced solution in the desktop sector they will continue to suffer from customer disgust.

By the way folks neither the iMac nor the Mini really pass as desktop solutions. The whole point of buying desktops these days is expandability, performance and serviceability. Otherwise laptops are the order of the day.

It's about changing the Mac Pro from a boring workstation that people expect to last 6-7 years into one that they want to upgrade every refresh cycle. This is where consumer products get the volume and value. GPU upgrades just mean that Apple has to get custom PCI cards out and offer driver support.

I could go on for pages, but your analysis is severely flawed. In corporate environments lighter desktops will probably be displaced by thin clients unless net top type machines begin to make sense. If you look at what younger people are buying, they're all laptops. Desktops still have advantages in a few areas including stability, expansion, and sometimes speed. If you inch it toward what is offered by another product line, those advantages dry up quickly. If the mac pro is slow relative to the top imac, blame Apple. They did very little to make it competitive. They adjusted their hardware choices to ones that offered relatively flat speed increases from 2008 to 2009, and now in 2012 we still haven't seen a real update at the base level there (in spite of price adjustment by intel that would have allowed for it). Their gpu drivers suck. Their OpenGL implementation sucks. They don't support 10 bit displayport. The trend from Apple is to dumb every device down to the level of the iphone and call it a feature. It doesn't really make for a better experience.

If you're buying a desktop, you probably also own a laptop. There needs to be a reason to own multiple computing devices. If they get too close in reliability, expansion, and speed, one will cannibalize the other. It's just that in this case that move is being forced in an artificial manner.

Apple has a huge problem with the cost of the Mac Pro, being that it is the only machine with viable internal expansion. A $3K machine just isn't viable anymore as an entry level expandable machine. To that end I'm really hoping Aple has seen the light here and seriously considers a wider split between the high end and the low end of the platform. I'd actually would like to see the low end populated with a desktop Ivy Bridge chip at under $1500. The high end machine should take up the Xeon and high reliability end of the spectrum.

To save the Mac Pro the platform needs to generate more volume in sales. That means addressing the lower cost expandable market.

Maybe I need to go to my old Catholic church and light a votive prayer candle and pray for Apple to see the light.

Then it isn't a Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is a workstation computer, and therefore needs a workstation processor.

You forget that he implied a range of machines. That is a very important concept for recapturing desktop sales. Apple simply doesn't have a credible desktop machine these days, that is nothing suitable for a low end desktop installation. And no neither the Mini nor the iMac are suitable as expandable machines

Quote:

Sounds like you really want a custom PC instead.

why should people be forced to buy PC hardware to have a flexible machine that can be configured for specific tasks? This attitude is really hard to digest in an Apple forum. For the same reason why do we have some really stupid choices for home and small business servers from Apple?

Yes I'm implying that the Mini server is perhaps the stupidest thing Apple has done in some time. I'm not sure why Apple is so hemmed in with desktop design that they can't address the needs of their users better. A low end Mac Pro or XMac could effectively address these issues. That is Apple could sell a chassis that could be a respectable server, low end workstation or power users desktop.

What would be awsome is if killed the pro and sold Mac Pro capable pc standard motherboards, let users customize the cpu, graphics ext. They could sell midrange, high end, and server class motherboards. Keep the geeks happy and not compete with the iMac / MacMini crowd. Make them online only so as not to confuse the consumer in the apple stores.

I really don't see this as a successful path for Apple. AS for the consumer, most of them already know that the Mini and the Pro are crap for their uses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by co4nd

What would be awsome is if killed the pro and sold Mac Pro capable pc standard motherboards, let users customize the cpu, graphics ext. They could sell midrange, high end, and server class motherboards. Keep the geeks happy and not compete with the iMac / MacMini crowd. Make them online only so as not to confuse the consumer in the apple stores.

I really don't see this as a successful path for Apple. AS for the consumer, most of them already know that the Mini and the Pro are crap for their uses.

Apple laptops out sell the desktops by over 4 to 1.

The mini and pro are almost irrelevant. And Apple's attention to them reflects that.

A PC swiss army knife by apple? A compnay who likes people to buy their overpriced Macs and throw them away (sorry, put them to other uses...or give to Auntie or the kids) after a few years and buy another one? PC gneric design? They've spent 15 years moving away from that. It's all about Apple. Not about 'PCs.' I don't see any evidence at all in the last 15 years that Apple will offer a generic box, a x-Mac (despite the fact I'd like one) or any other port wire infested fantasy. The future of the Mac desktop? It's the iMac. Front and not so centre. It's the one they sell most of... 600-800k sales, I'd guess. But wayyyy behind the laptops.

Apple wants you to fall in love all over again not upgrade the motherboard or the GPU. Like you can do that on a Mac Pro? Or the abundance of GPUs for it? or Chip upgrades? The mac pro's rep as an expandable machine that you can upgrade is kinda ironic...

That said. I'd still like to see a refresh. I'd be amazed if it gets a face lift.

or a price cut. Expect to see the entry level price rise if anything.

Apple are a mobile computing company. The more I say it...the more I feel uneasy. But maybe I'll forget about that uneasy ('still want an x-Mac') feeling when I sit at my iMac or play with an iPad 3...

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

"Despite the delays and current lack of devices, companies are still excited about the technology and its potential. Hitachis Williams feels that Thunderbolts biggest impact will be in video production. The new technology helps laptops and desktops morph into full-fledged video editing workstations. Just imagine the blazing speed that you can get while editing in the field.

LaCie's Little Big Disk Thunderbolt Series is available in 1TB or 2TB hard drive capacities, or with a 240GB SSD.
Several of the company representatives pointed out that Thunderbolt adaption will only continue to flourish. Apple recently announced that it sold 5.2 million Thunderbolt-equipped Macs in the fiscal first quarter of 2012, outpacing the rest of the PC industry, and the numbers are expected to grow."

Interesting snippet of info' on the progress of the Thunderbolt standard over the last year.

The jobs you needed a 'workstation/dinosaur' for are rapidly being eaten up by the 'mammals.'

eg Thunderbolt allows laptops and desktops to 'morph' (see bold emphasis above from Hitachi) into video 'workstations.' GPU 'ooomph' boxes powered by Thunderbolt? How long before you can turbo charge your laptop graphics? or iMac?

There was a time when the iMac sucked at 3D. (Heck, Apple sucked at 3D once. No open gl etc...no Nvidia cards etc...ah, the 'good old days...' My first mac 'worksation' had a 2d only card...'workstation'...a word made irrelevant by time.) But now you get a thunderbolt port for some high speed storage/daisy chaining of peripherals. You get a 'very decent' ATI gpu in the top end iMac. One option for one with 2 gigs of Vram on...(and I didn't think I'd ever see the day...being an ardent critic of the gpu crap normally offered in iMacs...) ...and you get a massive 27 inch display. ...and you have the i7 option with hyper threading.

The 'baby' iMac has grown into a fully 'grown' adult computer. A workstation in all but name. But it's a sign of the times when Hard drive makers are talking about 'mobile' 'workstations...'

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

1 SR-X EVGA motherboard designed specifically to overclock said chips to a screaming 4.5 Ghz (what ever the new Mac pro Has, it wont touch these speeds)

48 GB Mushkin High performance Ram. (can max M board to 96 GB)

1 Quadro 4000 GPU

1 SSD crucial Boot Drive

2x1 TB striped Seagate storage drives

The kicker is, this machine will be future proof, a new M board comes along- pop it in along with new faster chips. same with new Graphics cards. Etc. No more waiting for a Mac Pro Refresh. and all of it (for this kind of 3D rendering etc. Brute Power) much less$$$$

Which is virtually the same as buying a new machine, given the nature of workstation chips.

Enjoy your not OS X.

Enjoy your not overclockable slower Mac Pro (someday when it comes out maybe, cause they love us Pro users)

Oh and Mac doesn't way overcharge for Ram? and has limited types of ram that works, changing types ridiculously from mac model to mac model? ? Has a limited Motherboard? GPU choices?, is in general more expensive and you know it? Will most likely snub Pro users in future with lousy updates and slow bug fixes?

The mini and pro are almost irrelevant. And Apple's attention to them reflects that.

Don't get me wrong the Mini is an excellent special purpose computer it just isn't passable as a desktop.

Quote:

A PC swiss army knife by apple?

NO

Quote:

A compnay who likes people to buy their overpriced Macs and throw them away (sorry, put them to other uses...or give to Auntie or the kids) after a few years and buy another one? PC gneric design?

No again. I'm often shocked that people equate an XMac with a generic PC. Except for internal expansion capability it has little to do with that. In fact I could see Apple redifining what a desktop is.

Quote:

They've spent 15 years moving away from that.

It is more like 15 years of desktop stagnancy. Nothing really new has been done for the desktop since well almost ever.

Quote:

It's all about Apple. Not about 'PCs.' I don't see any evidence at all in the last 15 years that Apple will offer a generic box, a x-Mac (despite the fact I'd like one) or any other port wire infested fantasy.

Well they have at least thought about it. That is patents have been applied for for new platforms.

Quote:

The future of the Mac desktop? It's the iMac. Front and not so centre. It's the one they sell most of... 600-800k sales, I'd guess. But wayyyy behind the laptops.

That is only because it is Apes only economical solution.

Quote:

Apple wants you to fall in love all over again not upgrade the motherboard or the GPU. Like you can do that on a Mac Pro? Or the abundance of GPUs for it? or Chip upgrades? The mac pro's rep as an expandable machine that you can upgrade is kinda ironic...

You know the thing is I'm not concerned about upgrades in the sense of motherboards, processors and the like as now a days it doesn't make a lot of sense. Really it is about internal storage space and unique I/O cards.

Quote:

That said. I'd still like to see a refresh. I'd be amazed if it gets a face lift.

I'd be amazed if it didn't. Really it is that ancient in my mind.

Quote:

or a price cut. Expect to see the entry level price rise if anything.

Apple are a mobile computing company. The more I say it...the more I feel uneasy. But maybe I'll forget about that uneasy ('still want an x-Mac') feeling when I sit at my iMac or play with an iPad 3...

Don't get me wrong the Mini is an excellent special purpose computer it just isn't passable as a desktop.

If you bought a 2009 entry Mac Pro, you'd consider it passable yet even the entry Mac Minis have similar CPU performance. They support up to 16GB RAM, you can put in SSDs that do over 400MB/s read/write. The GPU is capable of running pretty high-end games at playable frame-rates:

It can run dual-displays, it can run all the Thunderbolt products out there and the entry price is just $600.

One day it will be small enough that it will be the only Apple computer than can be exported through customs rectally to avoid paying Apple's international tax rates.

Say what you like about the Mac Pro but the Mini is more than passable as a desktop. With Ivy Bridge and the latest GPU upgrades, it is going to be an even more awesome little desktop computer and is one of the best designed machines Apple has made.

Great things come in small packages. A Mac Pro is more powerful but it's not great because people expect power in a big package.

Look at the release cycle (in reverse order):

565 days+
511 days
420 days
279 days
240 days
292 days

By the time we get to March, that could come close to 600 days since the last one - I see a trend there. The Mini only had 500 days before people were saying it was dead and gone and that was just a blip, this is a trend.

And, if it just has a speed jump using some of the following CPUs (some are still quad-cores):

Enjoy your not overclockable slower Mac Pro (someday when it comes out maybe, cause they love us Pro users)

I'm sorry, in what universe does ANYONE who uses a workstation computer for actual work overclock? Workstation computers are supposed to be stable.

Quote:

Oh and Mac doesn't way overcharge for Ram?

Seriously? 1. You're calling it "Mac". 2. You're buying RAM from Apple? No one buys RAM from Apple. You can get 64GB of RAM for the current Mac Pro for under a grand. That's pretty impressive for the type of RAM it is.

Quote:

and has limited types of ram that works,

YEAH, it's a WORKSTATION computer. The type of RAM used is dependent on the chips.

Quote:

changing types ridiculously from mac model to mac model?

If by 'ridiculously' you mean 'goes up in clock speed so that it's backward compatible with the older Mac Pros but not forward compatible, which is okay because NO RAM is forward compatible', then I agree with you.

Quote:

? Has a limited Motherboard?

Again, it's a workstation computer. There are limited numbers of motherboards that support its chips.

Marvin CPU performance isn't a justification for a desktop computer these days. No body denys that the Mini is a good performer for a machine it's size, just that it can't take on the duties of a desktop machine. In fact I'd go so far as to say that in business at least desktops these days are bought for their expansion (PCI-Express slots) and secondary storage slots, otherwise laptops are purchased.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

If you bought a 2009 entry Mac Pro, you'd consider it passable yet even the entry Mac Minis have similar CPU performance. They support up to 16GB RAM, you can put in SSDs that do over 400MB/s read/write. The GPU is capable of running pretty high-end games at playable frame-rates:

One can't deny that the Mini will just become more powerful with each generation of chips from Intel or AMD for that matter. But that doesn't make the machine a desktop in the general sense but rather just a more powerful special purpose computers.

Beyond all of that the Pro is a multiprocessor machine that is advantaged in suitable workloads. Comparing it to an iMac is silly because you wouldn't buy it for simple apps and workloads. You can't realistically say that the iMac is more powerful than the Pro, in many cases it doesn't even come close.

Quote:

It can run dual-displays, it can run all the Thunderbolt products out there and the entry price is just $600.

Thunderbolt means nothing in this case. I just don't ever see it as a solution to the use of expansions slots in a commercial environment.

Quote:

One day it will be small enough that it will be the only Apple computer than can be exported through customs rectally to avoid paying Apple's international tax rates.

I thought that was the iPhone.

Quote:

Say what you like about the Mac Pro but the Mini is more than passable as a desktop. With Ivy Bridge and the latest GPU upgrades, it is going to be an even more awesome little desktop computer and is one of the best designed machines Apple has made.

Sorry but I disagree. You are excessively focused performance as a measure of a desktops suitability. Now a days the only reason to buy a desktop is to get the flexibility and serviceability slots and storage expansion provides. It is easy to confuse good design with utility.

Quote:

Great things come in small packages. A Mac Pro is more powerful but it's not great because people expect power in a big package.

Look at the release cycle (in reverse order):

565 days+
511 days
420 days
279 days
240 days
292 days

By the time we get to March, that could come close to 600 days since the last one - I see a trend there. The Mini only had 500 days before people were saying it was dead and gone and that was just a blip, this is a trend.

Much of that delay is Intel related. However I don't believe that Mac Pro sales are that good that Apple really sees reason to focus on its development. Between the two I really think the Pro is the "deader" of the two. The Mini has an impressive following for the type of computer it is.

Quote:

And, if it just has a speed jump using some of the following CPUs (some are still quad-cores):

who's even going to notice it happened? Nah, it's a redesign or GTFO.

A common fault in these threads is the equating of an XMac to a computer with a powerful CPU. That is a mistake in my mind as that is what you commonly think of the Pro as being. Instead it is a package to deliver flexibility to the user. Flexibility is expansion slots, storage configurability and the like, something the Mini doesn't currently provide.

The Mac mini is a great computer. I was using it as a server before Apple sold a server version. I would consider it a desktop. I have a mixture of Mac & PC desktops at my job. I can't recall ever having the desktops of either platform upgraded except the RAM. So the mini would be a great replacement in a lot of instances. The only drawback to the mini is that it doesn't have a security lock on it so it becomes a very theftable computer. It's far easier to steal obviously than a traditional mini tower.

You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs

A common fault in these threads is the equating of an XMac to a computer with a powerful CPU. That is a mistake in my mind as that is what you commonly think of the Pro as being. Instead it is a package to deliver flexibility to the user. Flexibility is expansion slots, storage configurability and the like, something the Mini doesn't currently provide.

You just coined a new term Wizard.
It is the lack of internal flexibility that keeps many of us from wanting to own a mini or an iMac. That is why we have been screaming for a mid sized XMac.

It is the lack of internal flexibility that keeps many of us from wanting to own a mini or an iMac.

Yeah, this comes up now and again but there are rarely practical examples of what the expansion is used for.

You can upgrade the GPU but it's not a common practise. Generally you buy a good GPU and it lasts a few years - you'd do any upgrade once and you could easily buy a new machine to get a combo of upgrades.

You can have multiple internal drives, which is fine but you can easily get a USB 3 enclosure with Ivy Bridge machines and that way a computer upgrade doesn't mean possibly breaking your RAID.

Ports are taken care of and so that just leaves the special case PCI cards, which mostly have Thunderbolt solutions now.

I'd personally find far more use for 4 x USB3 ports and a Thunderbolt port than a PCI slot. The vast majority of computer users wouldn't even know what to do with a PCI card or install it. Plus, Thunderbolt makes manufacturers actually create a nice product instead of a raw board with physical switches and LCDs where needed like external audio/video processing devices.

I'm sorry, in what universe does ANYONE who uses a workstation computer for actual work overclock? Workstation computers are supposed to be stable.

Boxx does that on their single socket workstations. I think a couple other companies do so as well. My guess would be that they ship with really hefty cooling solutions. The design really is a function of the current state of software. They build machines like that for applications that are cpu intensive yet still don't scale well with high core counts. It's not necessarily ideal, but they do exist. Yeah workstations are supposed to be stable. Most of them are designed not to run close to their thermal limits in case of environmental factors and because the typically quoted overheating numbers are only approved for up to a certain number of hours per day. If you're going beyond eight per day, the recommended temperatures are much lower.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

Yeah, this comes up now and again but there are rarely practical examples of what the expansion is used for.

You can upgrade the GPU but it's not a common practise. Generally you buy a good GPU and it lasts a few years - you'd do any upgrade once and you could easily buy a new machine to get a combo of upgrades.

You can have multiple internal drives, which is fine but you can easily get a USB 3 enclosure with Ivy Bridge machines and that way a computer upgrade doesn't mean possibly breaking your RAID.

Ports are taken care of and so that just leaves the special case PCI cards, which mostly have Thunderbolt solutions now.

I'd personally find far more use for 4 x USB3 ports and a Thunderbolt port than a PCI slot. The vast majority of computer users wouldn't even know what to do with a PCI card or install it. Plus, Thunderbolt makes manufacturers actually create a nice product instead of a raw board with physical switches and LCDs where needed like external audio/video processing devices.

Gpus can be useful when it's a compatibility thing such as the 2008 mac pro and FCPX. It wasn't that old, yet newer programs demanded OpenCL. The trend started around SL so not terribly far into its usable life. Many companies stagger their purchases, so even if they have a few of the latest models, the overall duty cycle of a machine might be quite long.

Do you really expect 4x usb3 ports? This is Apple. I use their computers just like the rest of you. There are certain things that suck, and we put up with them. They include graphics drivers and port allocation. We still don't have a single usb3 port. I think they'll accept the two or whatever granted by the Intel chipset assuming they have stable drivers. If not you might even see this pushed another year or require a firmware update later. Thunderbolt still hasn't received much of an ecosystem. Even then, it's going to require more bandwidth to be more than a mid range solution. Intel has promised that, but it is unlikely to happen soon enough to influence your next purchase.

If you bought a 2009 entry Mac Pro, you'd consider it passable yet even the entry Mac Minis have similar CPU performance. They support up to 16GB RAM, you can put in SSDs that do over 400MB/s read/write. The GPU is capable of running pretty high-end games at playable frame-rates:

It can run dual-displays, it can run all the Thunderbolt products out there and the entry price is just $600.

One day it will be small enough that it will be the only Apple computer than can be exported through customs rectally to avoid paying Apple's international tax rates.

Say what you like about the Mac Pro but the Mini is more than passable as a desktop. With Ivy Bridge and the latest GPU upgrades, it is going to be an even more awesome little desktop computer and is one of the best designed machines Apple has made.

Great things come in small packages. A Mac Pro is more powerful but it's not great because people expect power in a big package.

Look at the release cycle (in reverse order):

565 days+
511 days
420 days
279 days
240 days
292 days

By the time we get to March, that could come close to 600 days since the last one - I see a trend there. The Mini only had 500 days before people were saying it was dead and gone and that was just a blip, this is a trend.

And, if it just has a speed jump using some of the following CPUs (some are still quad-cores):

A redesigned Mac Pro 'x-Mac' would be very nice. Surely long over due. Re-designing the Mac Pro is the one way we may get this mythical beast...with them forcing the entry price far, far lower. No tower should cost almost £2100 just to get a crap quad core in a monolithic case with an old gpu. Apple's desktop 'grid' upsell model really paints machines into a corner in some respects.

Having said that, your argument was calm and rational in making the case for the Mac Mini. A very elegant and unassuming machine in the 'flesh.' (I drool every time I walk into PC World and see one...) With an i7, 'ok' gpu and support for 16 gigs of ram and Thunderbolt...that's pretty damn impressive in such a small footprint.

More than capable video or photoshop workstation driving an Apple 27 inch display.

I enjoyed the links to the gaming footage. More than comparable to consoles. With Ivy bridge, the Mini's value proposition increases vastly. You have one mini, a 27 inch Apple monitor and $700 change over the entry Mac Pro.

The comment re: shrinkage over time to bypass Apple's taxes made my laugh.

That may be the future design of Apple's desktops. Smaller...thinner...smaller. In that respect, the Pro is the odd one out.

The mini shows it up as what it is. Stale. Heck. The mini now even out performs my dual core 3 gig iMac which is only a 2-3 years old.

The Mini is more of a 'desktop' than the Pro is a 'workstation' at their respective prices.

What does GTFO mean? *('Get the fcuck off? Out? ...)

Lemon Bon Bon.

PS. How does the mini's ATI card stack up against my iMacs 8800'GT' gpu. Anyone know?

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

I actually think Apple has shot themselves in the foot here. They are no longer considered credible as a desktop supplier of computing hardware. This will not be easy to recover from no matter what they do with the Mac Pro. However as long as they only have a grossly over priced solution in the desktop sector they will continue to suffer from customer disgust.

By the way folks neither the iMac nor the Mini really pass as desktop solutions. The whole point of buying desktops these days is expandability, performance and serviceability. Otherwise laptops are the order of the day.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the sales data show the contrary. As a shareholder, I trust that Apple are putting more faith in the sales data than in your opinions about what customers want. I hope Apple continue to shift product design away from the "expandability" model of the PeeCee toward the integration model of consumer electronics.

I'd expect all dedicated GPUs that Apple uses in 2012 computers to exceed the 8800GT. The 8800GT has lasted ok for 4 years relative to the low-end but the 6750M was out in 2011 so it's only 3 years really before mobile graphics surpassed it.

I believe an $800 Ivy Bridge Mini with a Radeon 7000 series mobile GPU or NVidia Kepler mobile GPU would make for a very nice and compact replacement for a 2008 or even 2009 Mac Pro.

It's now or never for the Mac Pro re-design. It would be a nice opportunity to deliver Wizard's 'X-Mac' machine. Surely the Mac Pro is the odd one out in terms of desktop. Everything else is getting smaller. While the Pro remains monolithic. (In an admittedly, somewhat timeless and beautifully engineered...overly so, case.) Give me an alu cube where you can sit one 'pro' on top of the other. Like lego bricks. I still miss the cube. I can't help it.

Thanks for the 8800GT links. Looks like the 8800 is hanging in there over the low end...but not for much longer by the looks of things. Feel Apple has been somewhat laggardly with gpus on the low end...and in the iMac over the years.

But the recent (well..the last update of the iMac) signalled a change from the GPU 'side grades' we'd gotten in recent years. The 6750 puts the 8800 to pasture but it was the 6970M that really impressed on the chart you linked. Standing proud against some really decent desktop cards. I think that's the best GPU Apple's ever put in an iMac comparatively or otherwise. But you'd need it, I guess, with the iMac 27 incher's top resolution.

If I wasn't hanging onto my Core 2 duo iMac for another year I'd definitely be buying the top iMac with that card in. Very impressive...especially with 2 gigs of Vram option and a 27 inch screen. (Like a dream come true for me...considering some of the top end gpu junk the iMac has had over the years...though the 4850 wasn't so bad. Or the 8800GS/GT.)

Think you're right. By end of 2012, the Mac GPUs should eclipse the 8800GT.

The point you make about the Radeon 7000 or Nv Kepler mobile GPU going into an Ivy Bridge Mini is note worthy. Especially when you say it makes for a 'compact' replacement for the 2008 or even a 2009 entry level pro. A couple of years and a mini humbles a base pro. A sign of the times. More than enough power for any consumer.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

I can understand Wizard's frustration with Apple's desktops as much as I understand Apple's design direction in desktops...

Looking at the iPad, alot of power is going into a very small device. And that's set to go off the charts for the retina iPad. It's signalling a trend. Perhaps components on Apple's desktop are finally catching up with the designs of the iMac and Mac Mini to a degree. With ivy bridge cpus...the i7 finally filtering down to the Mini...for example...and the mobile 6970M giving great bang for buck in a small enclosure.

It looks like the chase is on for mobile dollars. The gravity is pulling in the direction of Airs, laptops, iOS devices... I guess they're bringing in the most revenue. Meanwhile, the Pro sits and waits. As much a problem of Intel providing the right cpu as Apple not using readily available and cheaper components to offer a better value proposition in terms of a 'tower' machine.

I always felt Apple had it right when the line up from top to bottom Pro, Cube, iMac. But they sell mostly iMacs now...and that number is dwarfed by laptops.

I'm still looking forward to what Apple does this year with the Mac line. (You've got to hand it to them. 5 million Macs approx per quarter now. How long before the Mac user base hits 100 million? A couple of years?)

But I will be buying an iPad 3.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

It's about changing the Mac Pro from a boring workstation that people expect to last 6-7 years into one that they want to upgrade every refresh cycle. This is where consumer products get the volume and value. GPU upgrades just mean that Apple has to get custom PCI cards out and offer driver support.

trying to upgrade the GPUs in their 4 year old Mac Pros instead of buying a new one. That sort of thing might seem fine from a consumer point of view but if it kills the profitability from Apple's (and by extension Intel's) point of view, then it's not in the best interests of the consumer either because the prices have to be jacked up and the updates won't be frequent.

Right now, the top 27" iMac is faster than the 3.2GHz Mac Pro ($2900) and includes a 27" IPS screen ($999) for just $2199 - iMac is $1700 cheaper than an equivalent Mac Pro setup. Mobile GPUs aren't nearly as gimped as they used to be:

That site places the 6970M above the Mac Pro's 5770 but below the 5870. I think it may in fact be slower than the 5770 but it's in the same range that you wouldn't notice the difference. There is the issue of double-precision support but there are DP mobile GPUs and Apple can share the lower-end models between the iMac and Mac Pro. As the stats show, there's not really a noticeable performance loss going with a mobile GPU but you save space and lower heat.

There's no real harm in using desktop GPUs though so if that's the better option for the Mac Pro, so be it. I think it's the one component that urges Mac Pro owners to hold onto their machines longer instead of replacing them and getting the latest CPU upgrades.

The total Mac Pro sales will be in the hundreds of thousands per quarter. I'd expect the number of buyers across the models to be spread out based on usual wealth distribution - the vast majority at the bottom and the minority at the top. Each model, I'd say less than 100k each per quarter.

This whole "volume" argument is problematic. If Apple does not provide towers for customers who need the expandability, and a more transparent policy statement about continuing the line in the future, some of the more important, and influential, customers will be forced to look elsewhere for solutions. If such a downward spiral continued, Apple could well end up being little more than what it is accused of being, an expensive toys company. I would not like to see that happen.

There are more customers than Apple concede who are sitting on the sidelines to see where Apple goes with their product lineup.

iMacs use, for example, more expensive RAM than Mac Pros and Mac Pro users want RAM, lots of RAM as well as the ability to add things as needed, be it a PCIe SSD or multiple graphics cards or whatever.

It is an important segment because it typically is represented by people in positions to influence the acquisition policies of the university, research group, company or whatever. Even when talking about smaller organizations, such as professional photographers or video producers the needs are similar and the influence within the industry or market segment.

Apple's lack of clarity is not benefiting the company or their customers.